Open Latarjet Results in Lower Recurrent Instability and Revision Rates Than Arthroscopic Bankart Repair at a 10-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

Alex M. Meyer M.D., Samuel G. Lorentz M.D., Christopher S. Klifto M.D., Kendall E. Bradley M.D., Brian C. Lau M.D., Jonathan F. Dickens M.D., Eoghan T. Hurley M.B., M.Ch., Ph.D.
{"title":"Open Latarjet Results in Lower Recurrent Instability and Revision Rates Than Arthroscopic Bankart Repair at a 10-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review","authors":"Alex M. Meyer M.D.,&nbsp;Samuel G. Lorentz M.D.,&nbsp;Christopher S. Klifto M.D.,&nbsp;Kendall E. Bradley M.D.,&nbsp;Brian C. Lau M.D.,&nbsp;Jonathan F. Dickens M.D.,&nbsp;Eoghan T. Hurley M.B., M.Ch., Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.12.038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare arthroscopic Bankart repair versus the open Latarjet procedure at a minimum of a 10-year follow-up evaluating recurrence and arthropathy development rates.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review was performed in concordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they reported on the arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Recurrent instability, revisions, and instability arthropathy were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, 40 studies met our criteria and were included, with 2,019 shoulders undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 1,069 undergoing the open Latarjet procedure. The rate of recurrent instability was 0.0% to 22.6% (redislocations: 0.0%-9.6%) in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure and 13.3% to 82.2% (redislocations: 9.6%-25.7%) among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The rate of total revisions was 0.0% to 17.9% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure and 4.8% to 42.9% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The rate of overall arthritis was 10.3% to 71.4% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure and 16.7% to 89.3% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There was a lower recurrent instability rate and revision rate in the open Latarjet group compared to the arthroscopic Bankart group at long-term follow-up. The rates of moderate to severe arthritis were comparable between the 2 procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":"41 9","pages":"Pages 3693-3705"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806325000088","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To compare arthroscopic Bankart repair versus the open Latarjet procedure at a minimum of a 10-year follow-up evaluating recurrence and arthropathy development rates.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in concordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they reported on the arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Recurrent instability, revisions, and instability arthropathy were evaluated.

Results

Overall, 40 studies met our criteria and were included, with 2,019 shoulders undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 1,069 undergoing the open Latarjet procedure. The rate of recurrent instability was 0.0% to 22.6% (redislocations: 0.0%-9.6%) in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure and 13.3% to 82.2% (redislocations: 9.6%-25.7%) among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The rate of total revisions was 0.0% to 17.9% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure and 4.8% to 42.9% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The rate of overall arthritis was 10.3% to 71.4% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure and 16.7% to 89.3% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Conclusions

There was a lower recurrent instability rate and revision rate in the open Latarjet group compared to the arthroscopic Bankart group at long-term follow-up. The rates of moderate to severe arthritis were comparable between the 2 procedures.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在10年的随访中,开放Latarjet比关节镜Bankart修复的复发不稳定性和翻修率更低:一项系统综述。
目的:比较关节镜下Bankart修复与开放Latarjet手术至少10年的随访,评估复发和关节病变的发展率。方法:按照PRISMA指南进行系统评价。如果报道了关节镜下Bankart修复或开放Latarjet手术,随访时间至少为10年,则纳入研究。评估复发性不稳定、修复和不稳定关节病。结果:总体而言,40项研究符合我们的标准,包括2019例接受ABR的肩部和1069例接受开放Latarjet手术的肩部。接受开放性Latarjet手术的患者复发不稳定率为0.0%-22.6%(再脱位:0.0%-9.6%),接受关节镜Bankart修复的患者复发不稳定率为13.3%-82.2%(再脱位:9.6%-25.7%)。在接受开放Latarjet手术的患者中,总翻修率为0.0%-17.9%,在接受关节镜Bankart修复的患者中,总翻修率为4.8%-42.9%。接受开放性Latarjet手术的患者总体关节炎发生率为10.3%-71.4%,接受关节镜Bankart修复的患者总体关节炎发生率为16.7%-89.3%。结论:在长期随访中,与关节镜下Bankart组相比,开放Latarjet组的复发不稳定率和翻修率较低。中重度关节炎的发病率在两种治疗方法之间是相当的。证据等级:IV级:对I-IV级研究的系统评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
期刊最新文献
Instructions for Authors Announcements Masthead Editorial Board Table of Contents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1